About Real Talk

Recent Profile Visitors

Real Talk's Activity

The police should be at the schools EVERYDAY during the morning commute of the buses into school property and at times of dismissal from the schools. UNLESS THERE ARE CRIMES BEING COMMITTED DURING THOSE TIMES THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCEPTIONS. And, I'm not talking about officers just sitting in cars running radar. IMHO, there should be one out front with a "SLOW DOWN" sign and another one in a car in case there is a need to follow someone.The police have a sworn duty to serve and PROTECT. They should NOT be hiding in wait of traffic offenders. They should be SEEN and make a presence. THAT is what stops crime - not hiding and jumping out to surprise people whom often times have already committed the offense.Uncle, on a side note those little buses taking children to and from school do not have share the same guidelines regarding seatbelts. It is the same as a yellow school bus.

I didn't get a ticket.I realize they've been parking there for decades.It is standard for State Highway Patrol to have at least their running lights on when parked in the median or side of the road - for visibility.Finally, I'm not asking for the police to have their headlights on. I'm asking them to at least have running lights on. When I passed that officer parked on the side of the road he was not visible until about 30 yards away. It was dangerous because the back of the vehicle blended into the darkness.I hope the chief of police considers this issue when telling their officers each day to be "safe out there".

I just wanted to point out that the Greenhills Police Officer running radar on Winton Rd. this morning at 6:15am was in a dangerous position.It has been mentioned previously on this site that the Police are supposed "to serve and protect". Their job is not to hide in the shadows waiting to come out and arrest someone.In that light I propose the following question:If I was to be speeding down a street with at least medium to light traffic, or in heavy traffic for that matter, and up ahead there was a police officer lying in wait with their radar on ready to catch speeders is it more important for that police officer to be out in the open much in advance so that a speeder at least has a chance to SLOW down prior to getting a ticket thus providing a safer environment of the people around me? Or, should the police officer hide, therefore, allowing me to continue to speed putting others in "jeopardy" and get the ticket? Keep in mind, we're not talking about reckless speeding (20mph+ over) or weaving through traffic while speeding at 20mph+. Let's just say for argument I was 10mph over the speed limit. The "beginning" limit where a police officer might pull some one over.The easy answer is the obvious one: Don't speed and you won't have that issue. That surely is the common sense way to avoid a ticket. However, we all speed at least time from time. So, the initial question is still applicable.Police officers in some other cities have their running lights on during their patrol of roads and neighborhoods. Thus, being visible to the public. It is very unusual for beat patrol officers to be undercover. Why, then the game of playing hide and pounce?So, driving to work today at 6:15am there is a police officer parked in that extra strip of asphalt paving facing south bound traffic with all of the lights turned off to the vehicle. Very unsafe! The vehicle is black and nearly impossible to see until you get very close to it. Again, stay visible. Your job is to be visible. Not to be playing peekaboo games.

Very sad to hear of his passing. Mr. Willard was a nice man. I had the opportunity to speak with him on several occassions at different local events and in run-ins with him around Greenhills.I pray for his family and friends.

If this response was truly the case in the meeting then I have to say that this should really raise some eyebrows not only with the people that may have voted "no" to the bond issue, but with the people who supported the bond issue.

Two million dollars compared to statements time and time again of, "It will cost nearly the same amount of money to repair the current buildings as it would by building new..."

Ouch! And, why would the superintendent allow such a monetary difference not get the amount of clarity and get unanswered? Seems to me that the ball has been dropped.

Paula, WWWarrior, & Equalizer, what would you say considering the superintendent's comments surrounding the money it would take to make these necessary major repairs?

The superintendent has a fiduciary responsible. Has the super fulfilled his duties of due diligence? That's an answer which only you can determine.

I find it rather disheartening to know that the numbers and the angle of "attack" from the board have been clearly shown that they don't add up. To me, it's another reason to seriously question the answers they come up with the problems that ail the school district.

Cicero, I believe you are a bit off on your assessment of "the next two years will be very lean years."

I contend that the next-forever years will be very lean years for Greenhills. Cuts from the State of Ohio will not stop in the near future and this will and has had a profound affect on the Village. It's been said a million times: Without a tax base coming from corporate dollars you will see Greenhills slide deeper and deeper into non-existence. For 4 decades the council and past Village Managers have sat idle on "Mayberry".

Once trash collection is gone it won't come back. Taxes will continue to go up. Real estate values will, at best, stay stagnant. It is a sad state of affairs that Greenhills continues to find itself. Without leadership from Council and the caring members of its community Greenhills will cease to exist and, unfortunately, be absorbed by Forest Park. It would be unlikely that Springfield Township would absorb Greenhills.

For all intensive purposes Greenhills is dead. No one is game enough to say what needs to be said and get things going again. I will state one for now: An "aging in place" community is terrible. Too many retirees in one spot will kill a community.

This particular tract of land that runs parallel to Sharon Rd. was purchased several decades ago by the resident who lives where Jewel and Julep cross at the turn in the road. This tract also is in the R/W of Sharon Rd.

This strip of land is completely useless for any further development other than an extra lane of road. Why anyone would purchase a piece of property that not only is in the R/W of Sharon Rd., but is also an easement for the utility companies is beyond me. Perhaps, they had money burning a hole in their pocket.

The Greenbelt should go away in every instance. NOTHING in the Village could be constructed on any property, in regards to commercial development without prior approval anyway. The greenbelt serves absolutely no purpose and is antiquated. Get rid of it. It's just yet another burden on the people and the administration of Greenhills.

If I were a council member I'd start researching how much money, if any, is spent maintaining the greenbelt areas. There was, in fact, a study done over a decade ago which detailed what type of work needed to be done to ensure that proper care and maintenance was being done to make sure severe undergrowth and pesky vegetation would not smother the good growth of vegetation (i.e. honeysuckle tree removal, etc.). That's probably lost under a mountain of other issues which have gone to the wayside since the comprehensive plan was adopted.

The strip of land you are talking about is not greenbelt. It is privately owned.

Actually I don't know exactly what section you are referring to, but contrary to what Real Talk stated, that section on the South side of Sharon coming down the hill is owned by the Village now. There has been some trimming back for safety reasons (tried to make a turn off Junefield onto Sharon) as it is also the right-of way.

I think you will see a miracle happen if any council member stands up and take a stand on this issue (And, let me be clear - their stand wouldn't have to be a proponent for your side). It is unlikely you will see any movement on this issue until it's time for the election cycle.

Real results will have to come from a movement from you. Too many times the council have sat on issues without openly declaring their opinions. It's sad to note that open discussion has rarely been heard from the elected officials. When you think about what the process is (and, this is not just particular to Greenhills) you really only have a chance to hear from your elected officials twice a month. I would bet that if you put a stop watch on each council member in a one month period the time spent by these council members talking about individual resolutions and their opinions regarding the issues that face Greeenhills wouldn't exceed one hour. Again and again we (the constituents) miss hearing individual views from our elected officials. There are many ways our elected officials could communicate. But, none of those outlets are taken advantage of.

I absolutely 100% agree that the greenbelt which is already bordered by the Hamilton County Park District and lies on private property as an easement of sorts should be dissolved. Other pieces should be reserved/preserved as it stands right now. Those pieces can always be reviewed at another time.

I will take you up on one point you are trying to make though. It is not uncommon for homeowners not to be able to do what they want with every single portion of their "personal property". There are situations where property owners have easements on their property. Easements will make at least some portion of a person's property unusable by the property owner. A strip of land in front of your house which is in the right-of-way is another piece of your property which are essentially off limits as well. So, there are situations where what people pay in taxes are not "usable" by the homeowner.

However, easements are documented on property plats and must be at least disclosed, if not shown on a property survey, to the homeowner PRIOR to the contract of SOLD being signed.

If the portion of greenbelt which lies on your property was properly defined to you by the representative(s) who sold the house at the time of purchase then the onus of responsibility lies clearly on your shoulders. It is unfortunate and I can completely understand why you may be upset, but the contract you signed would have stated the restrictions that came with that strip of land. If it did not, then you may have a case.

My question to you is - Do you have your initial contract that you signed when purchasing the home and does the plat or contract state easements of greenbelt and its definition?

The greenbelt had a purpose 60+ years ago. The use of the land which now completely surrounds Greenhills has been defined as park property. That won't change (won't is a permanent word, but I think/hope you get the point).

This is not the first time this discussion has come up. Years ago at a Planning Commission meeting this was brought up and the person who brought it up was silenced after the meeting for doing so. Neither party resides on the current Planning Commission.

Terrible news as the Pioneer Days festival is gone, And, gone for good you may as well count it.

There are people I know who tried to contact people relating to getting this festival put together. The calls began mid last year. Not one return phone call. Pathetic. So, to those people who think no one tries to volunteer time - shame on you for avoiding the issue.

As goes the community - goes the community.

I wonder what exactly is going to go on at the pool in place of the festival. Anyone know?

Cicero, the fact that council has shot things down without one shred of a piece of investigative work is nothing new.

Several issues in the past have come up with council making judgment calls where not ONE single shred of knowledge of the subject was present. Table it. Table it. Table it.

Other things were almost forced down the throats of the residents until others stepped up and took hold of the situation thus creating conversation and showing that things that were "once" thought of not being possible were actually feasible and completed.

Past council members and others in other committees have made decisions clearly based on ignorance - not due to investigation. You have to go no further than to talk to the other persons on other committees, who are not council members, and ask them if they feel like real progress can be made at all through their own board. The other committees are run from the top down, not horizontally. It's no wonder why these other committees can't get anything done and/or rarely meet. They've lost valuable assets over the years due to lack of organization, commitment, and manipulation. It's sad.

It's amazing. Greenhills is in SERIOUS trouble. If/when it comes "time" for Greenhills to get absorbed by another city (Forest Park) it will be too late for the residents to do anything. The tipping point is approaching with all of the debt which has been accrued. And, it's amazing that all of this has happened under a "R" controlled body.